Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 20, 2012

High School of the Dead2[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Keep. Tikiwont (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell would type this accidentally ZigSaw 23:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep 11 people used that redirect last month. Tideflat (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since it's a manga series it's quite likely that the second volume would be searched for with "High School of the Dead 2" and this is a plausible variation. Siuenti (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term, no value in deletion. WilyD 08:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Leaves of Grass[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Retarget, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

deletion : Article is not a quality redirect and obscures possible related articles. User:Warminster10101 (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure, retarget that one. --BDD (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bubb Rubb 2nd nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Keep. With the one visible impact remedied, no consensus to delete. Tikiwont (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing deletion after a declined speedy. This is an improperly formatted AfD entry title; it has since been moved to the correct title. The only incoming link links to the corrected version as well. Speedy deletion was declined since it could break external links, but that really doesn't strike me as a major problem. Even if such links are out there, I'm sure the correct title would be the first result from the automatic search. As such, it's displaying on the article's current nomination, and it looks a bit messy. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: qualifies for WP:CSD#G6, unemployed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. When following a link to a page that doesn't exist, you aren't met with search results, you're just told that there's no such page and invited to create it. We shouldn't assume readers will have the wherewithal to search for it. I don't think the benefits of making the current nomination look a bit less messy outweigh the small-but-objectively-present risk of readers being unable to find the page they're looking for. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right; I was thinking of typing in a term in our internal search box. But really, do we think there are external links out there to an old AfD that are still in use? These searches suggest there aren't. --BDD (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AFD is still easily found if one knows the article title, which one does if they have the old link or indeed if one has any reason at all to look for it specifically. As a rather esoteric part of our internal workings, it's hard for me to see external links to an old AfD as worth concern even if there was evidence they existed in quantity. My opinion is that if we fix the internal links, A&H's concern becomes a non-issue. BigNate37(T) 22:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I had intended to put this up myself for an administrative speedy delete, but did not get around to it. The continued existence of this page is needlessly confusing and serves no reasonable purpose.  --Lambiam 15:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes it's weird, but no valid reason to delete. Just need to get this one out of the previous AfD link box. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you propose to do that?  --Lambiam 07:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Without much difficulty :) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term, old redirects are often linked from outside Wikipedia, no value in deletion. WilyD 08:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have the same definition of "plausible search term." You find it plausible that someone would type "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bubb Rubb 2nd nomination" into the search box? --BDD (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

E-commerce solution[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Keep. Considered better than nothing and with some connection to the target. Tikiwont (talk)

Redirect employs awkward, inappropriate use of word "solution" and is only used to facilitate wikilinking promoting-toned PR slang. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per nom. Also, this redirect received only 50 hits in the last month, many of which were probably searchbots, and it is not linked to by any Wikipedia article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to note: recently I took care of orphaning it, and I'm pretty sure that I'm not the first one to do so, thus the hit count isn't trustworthy here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many redirects receive far less traffic; there's no basis for assuming bots generate nearly that many redirect views per month. (Not that valid pageviews should prevent us from deleting redirects when appropriate.) BigNate37(T) 16:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to discourage people from creating an article with this title. Siuenti (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Asinine though the term may be, a quick Google search indicates plenty of companies offering "e-commerce solutions." As a term with no discernible meaning, users may be curious to find out, and this is the best way to handle it. Incoming wikilinks are likely junk, but it's a plausible search term. --BDD (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be a good rationale if the target article explained the term. But in the lack of term this redirect is useless, as it only helps understanding that "e-commerce solution" is somehow related to "e-commerce", which is quite obvious without redirect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete for want of a target that explains the term. I'd like to see this term explained somewhere because it is so wishy-washy and generally poorly understood, but I don't see a good target for doing that. Maybe as a broad concept article down the road, but in lieu of having one to point this at, deletion is better than a poor target. To address another facet that's been mentioned, this redirect is problematic because it really does invite the wrong type of linking. Thing is, most unprintworthy redirects and all redirects from misspellings aren't valid link targets, and that isn't a deletion justification. BigNate37(T) 21:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't think of any possible valid reason to create an article at this title, aside from a large company having this name someday. Anyone who speaks English well enough to read this Wikipedia will understand that "solutions" in this context is an advertising buzzword that means basically nothing. This is the best way to handle it. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Immensly plausible search term (indeed, that it's marketing speak is likely to make me say "What the fuck does that mean?", then search it on Wikipedia), and doesn't impact the ability to wikilink with promotional sounding terms. So says His Royal Highness, The God King of Wikipedia (Pray to your God!) 08:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Greenie (occupation)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was No consensus. Just so that we can move on after a month passed. Tikiwont (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{*Greenie (occupation) → Environmentalist (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete "Greenie" is not an occupation as such. It is a term in common vernacular, or a derogatory term for an environmentalist. To call it an occupation is a misrepresentation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is also an unused redir and not a useful search term. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, some environmentalists are paid. This would make a bad article title, but seems like a reasonable redirect. Anyone using this search term would find what they are looking for at the target. Siuenti (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes , but they are not usually refered to as greenies. They are conservation biologists, environmental consultants, environmental scientists etc. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For this redirect to be useful, it is enough that they are occasionally referred to as greenies (the term is more common in Australia and New Zealand according to Wiktionary). Siuenti (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: doesn't make sense, nearly unused, no value as a search term. We generally keep helpful redirects, while this one is not. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it's used on average twice a day. Someone finds it useful, and at RfD the threshhold for establishing usefulness is low. Unused redirects have pageview stats of less than 10 views a month. BigNate37(T) 21:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a spurious argument. It only gets hits becaous it was in the Greenie dab page. I have removed it from there and added a link directly to environmentalist. The hits would now dry up. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was not an argument so much as a caution against using invalid arguments in RfDs. It's too common for folks to equate "not useful to many" with "not useful" and that sort of thinking needs to be objected to whenever it occurs. My comment above was not support for keeping the redirect and should not be read as such. More to the point, though: I saw your change in the disambiguation page, though I did not realize it was recently changed or by whom. Your pointing that out got me thinking, and I had a re-read of MOS:DAB#Piping and redirects and its Exceptions subsection. In this case my interpretation of the guideline is that we should keep this redirect listed at the disambiguation page instead of the proper title if and only if it would be an acceptable alternate title for the article. I don't feel it's appropriate in this case, so unless something else changes (e.g. the term is moved to the lead as a prominent synonym), then I agree with your changes to the disambiguation page. BigNate37(T) 23:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from alternative name}}. It's mentioned at the target, and properly sourced. BigNate37(T) 21:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is mentioned in the source but not as an occupation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This disambiguated redirect is the most tangible manner in which the term greenie remains associated with the article. Without this redirect, my concern is that someone will consider removing the entry from Greenie even though its use is mentioned at the target and properly referenced. That's a poor reason for keeping a redirect, but it does establish some small level of usefulness—I'd hate to see information become even a tiny bit harder to find because an unambiguous redirect was found to be slightly inaccurate. I don't think that real harm has been demonstrated in this redirect's existence, as it is not confusing or misleading (you end up at a logical place which explains the term). The factual accuracy of redirects is not held to a high standard, either: with redirects we are more concerned with helping people arrive at a title that will educate them. I assert that consensus at RfD has long held that inaccuracies in redirects are acceptable if they help people arrive at an article that will clarify the term. It's my opinion that the relative "occupation-ness" of this redirect is evident once you arrive at the target. BigNate37(T) 23:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many people are familiar with the way Wikipedia names its articles when they require disambiguation. It isn't always immediately clear though which of several possible titles or disambiguators will be used and this seems a perfectly plausible search term for the target article. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wikt:greenie says it's derogitory, so I'm inclined to use caution. SALT, maybe. WilyD 08:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:RNEUTRAL: "Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term." BigNate37(T) 15:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The policy you linked to sends me here, which says being offensive or abusive is a reason for deleting redirects. WilyD 17:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not quite, that's two sections up. While you were looking at it though, did you notice WP:RFD#DELETE point #3's full text? The same line that says being offensive is a deletion reason specifically makes an exception for when the term is discussed in the article, as is the case here. Dubya was always the famous example, until it was redirected to a different target. BigNate37(T) 18:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • IMO "derogatory" is not the same as offensive or abusive. Do you want to delete bean counter, and remove any reference to tree huggers as environmentalists? Siuenti (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are we discussing this? There is no incoming links and no-one is going to type in "Greenie (occupation)". They will type "greenie". Shall we all move on? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You nominated this redirect for discussion, and you are now criticising us for discussing it. Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions is probably the best way I can respond to that. BigNate37(T) 07:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In May, June and July, the three months before this nomination, this redirect was visited 60, 55 and 56 times respectively. This suggests that contrary to your beliefs people are finding this useful. Whether that is through typing in this phrase in the search box or URL or by one of the myriad other ways to search Wikipedia it is impossible to know, but as I noted in my earlier comment searching "Greenie (occupation)" is quite plausible. Also, the lack of incomming internal links does not preclude the existence of links from external sites (about which we can never know) and is explicitly listed as not a reason for deletion in the header of WP:RFD. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_20&oldid=1050185635"